Argument from Historical Proximity

[Adam]

Possibly, but this is all speculation. We don’t know that its “underlying sources” were Aramaic or that “some parts may have been written by someone not well educated”. As well, the “signs source” is an unverified hypothesis.

Some great scholars like C. C. Torrey and Matthew Black staked their reputations on John being originally in Aramaic. I agree that all the sources were in Aramaic, but I hold that all the editions of John were composed in Greek. Only the Discourses seem necessarily to have been written by someone highly educated.
As for the Signs Source, it's pretty verifiable except to the two extremes who gain by holding to the unitary authorship of John (the Fundamentalist types and the atheists).

Yes the prologue is high Christology, but so are the discourses with their emphasis on the divinity of Jesus – as opposed to the synoptic gospels.

Sorry that I did not make clear earlier that I regard the prologue and the discourses as both written by Nicodemus. He picked out from what Jesus said whatever seemed most out of line with conventional Judaism.

The nature of the discourses surely reflects an advanced theology developed well after Jesus’ death – not written while Jesus was still preaching. Why do argue the latter? And why argue it was for a court case?

Gee, have you forgotten that Jesus was tried before the Sanhedrin? And Pilate and Herod?
Refer to John 7:50-51: Nicodemus asks, "Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him...?" They then told him to "Look into it".

Some scholars think that the discourses may have come from a separate source but there is no convincing evidence that it did or that they were composed by Nicodemus. Are you referring to the 4th century Gospel of Nicodemus?

See my prior quote about Nicodemus. Yes, I recognize that most scholars regard the Discourses as coming later, but I'm glad that you're not convinced by that either. No, I'm referring to the Nicodemus who helped bury Jesus in 30 A. D.

The Muratorian Canon ascribes John as the author of the gospel which bears his and that it was “proof read”, as it were, by other apostles but it is not known who wrote the canon, when (but most likely around the 2nd century), or why, or whether it is a reliable source. It is not a scholarly work and just as likely to be based on tradition as any other available source.

No, it does not describe the other apostles as proof-reading what John wrote, it would be more likely implying the reverse. But most likely it means just what my position is, that several apostles (and others) wrote and John finished the writing.
Of course, the Muratorian Canon dates to a century after John was written, so my internal criticism is more reliable. It is not scholarly, it's based on tradition, but it seems to be exactly right. And if it's right, I'm basically right.

[Composer]

Still dodging I see. I’ll ask for the THIRD and last time. If John 1:14 is not referring to Jesus then who IS it referring to? Tasssman, an atheist, seems to understand John 1:14 refers to Jesus…

You lie that I dodged any thing.

You have been correctly refuted repeatedly in many ways you conversely repeatedly dishonestly attempt to evade.

Early on I pointed out -

The EMPHATIC Diaglott Original Greek NT Text Interlinear Footnotes, p. 313 Re: John 1:14 reads: -

14. Newcome in his Translation of the New Testament remarks, "Jesus the Son of God, is called the Word, because God revealed himself or his word by him." The following singular Eastern custom may perhaps illustrate the phraseology of the first part of this chapter. "In Abyssinia, there is an officer named Kal Hatze ; the word or voice of the king, who stands always upon the steps of the throne, at the side of a lattice window, where there is a hole, covered in the inside with a curtain of green taffeta. Behind this curtain the king sits; and speaks through the aperture to the Kal Hatze, who communicates his commands to the officers, judges, and attendants .- Bruce's travels (My Bols - Also see: EMPHATIC Diaglott #14 / Wikipedia_01)

(Composer earlier wrote: Thus we can see that Story book jesus was not "the word" but rather his god's Word was "made manifest / manifested / reflected / revealed" THROUGH jesus.)

i.e. Hence the man jesus in the Story book bible was merely the ' mouthpiece ' by which his god spoke i.e. Story book god's messages were relayed via the story book man jesus who was ' conceived in Mary's womb and NOT transferred there from a pre-existent literal existence, and when born of Mary ' ordained and appointed by his god for the simple task of relaying those messages on his god's behalf ' - . . . . the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: . . . . (John 14:10 cf: I can of mine own self do nothing:. . . . (John 5:30) KJV Story book (i.e. IF it were a godman that would be another lie!)

Hence this story book jesus' god's words (wisdom / Logos (See f1: below)) became flesh when uttered by the mortal man of carnal and sinful flesh and inherent sinful nature of story book jesus for which he had to eventually offer sacrifice for himself once. (Heb. 7:27) KJV Story book

I also acknowledge by your failure to answer legitimately or at all that your false claims that your story book ' it ' = your story book jesus and your inability also to demonstrate legitimately in any way that ' the word ' (John 1:1) = literally a pre-existent story book jesus.

You are proven to have failed on all counts!

BTW: Do you still believe the angel of Story book bible Matt. 1:20 lied and your jesus was literally transferred in to Mary's womb from a literal pre-existent form?

Most so called christians do and you are definitely no better in understanding your story book bible -

"There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5.)

So Jesus really is a man. This is the undoubted teaching of the New Testament. Now compare that with these words by the former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most self acclaimed Christians like you actually view the story book jesus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas." (Extract from: a_hayward/come_down/comedownfromheaven.htm#4)


Never mind I'm still here to help so better luck next time!

f1: Logos

A correct understanding of John 1:1-3 hinges on appreciating what "the Word" means in context. The Greek word "logos" (which is translated "word" in John 1), does not in itself mean "Jesus".

The word ‘logos’ is also translated elsewhere in the Bible as: account, communication, intent, reason, tidings, cause, doctrine, preaching and saying.

"Logos - A word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea." (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, Oak Harbor, WA: 1995)

Further we read in Strong’s Greek dictionary that:

"A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1." (Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, Oak Harbor, WA, 1995)

The word "logos" can refer to the inner thought (a divine reason) which is expressed outwardly in words or other communication. In the beginning God had this inner thought. His singular purpose was centered in Christ. When Christ was born, this "word" was turned into flesh and blood. Jesus was "the word made flesh" (John 1:14). The thought, the purpose, the reason that was in God’s mind in the beginning, (the "logos") was expressed outwardly in the person of Jesus Christ. (My Bolds)

What about "the Word was God"? Remembering that the "Word" is God’s inner thinking or purpose, we read in Proverbs:

"As he (a man) thinks in his heart, so is he." (Proverbs 23:7)

The same is also true of God. As God thinks, so is He. Therefore God’s thinking (His "logos") is God, "the word was God". (Source: One God or a trinity by James & Debbie Flint: ISBN: 81-87409-61-4)

Better luck next time!

[Tassman]

You haven’t actually presented an argument. What you’ve presented are a series of disconnected premises. But I would agree with you that your premises amount to nothing more than sound bites easily picked off.

I smell sour grapes.

You smell wrongly. My point was that it is easy to dismiss an argument when taking sound-bites out of context. And you are still doing it. SeanD is very strong on this point and I agree with him. It’s a dishonest tactic.

No argument here.

Yes, well it would be difficult to argue given that it’s unambiguously stated in the NT.

John is an Aramaic speaking, illiterate fisherman from the backwater of Galilee and is thus not likely to be the author of the book that bears his name.

I think you meant - “humble fishermen from up-country Galilee do [not] qualify as socially elite”?

Yes I did thanks. It would be difficult to envisage John being included in the top 500.

You still have not answered why the author of John could not have been a literate Greek speaking Jew. Can you answer this?

Well it would hardly be a Jew writing a book about Jesus the god, would it?

More to the point, you seem to be trying to conflate John the apostle as the author of the gospel that bears his name which is highly improbable, with an anonymous literate Greek Christian.

The latter is most likely the composer of John’s gospel. We don’t know who that could be but his sources would be the oral tradition which had evolved to the point where Jesus was considered eternally divine, i.e. a later tradition.

I’ve already blown this out of the water with evidence that it was not unprecedented to live to 100 in the ancient world. Additionally, in 74AD a census under Vespasian was taken for longevity. From those records Pliny the Elder wrote:

Your don’t seem to know how to respond to this other than to simply state your premise again.

Hardly “blown out of the water”!

The pampered upper classes, with good nutrition and healthy life-style, no doubt lived to a ripe old age. The likes of a poor fisherman, turned evangelist, such as the apostle John is less likely. But we cannot know either way.

Again, I’m not arguing who wrote John, only that it was composed by an eyewitness. You don’t seem to have a cogent rebuttal argument to this. Your main argument seems to essentially be something of a strawman at this point by arguing John wasn’t the author.

You appear to be ambivalent whether the Gospel was written by John the apostle or someone else.

But, that aside you are putting the full weight of your argument of eyewitness reportage on just one passage in John. That is not much to go on, especially when we know that early texts were tampered with to emphasize theological points. “A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities……” ‘Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts’. Dr H Gamble, Professor of Religious Studies, Virginia University

E.g. The author of 2 Peter, writing in the apostle’s Peter’s name, specifically claimed to be an “eyewitness of his majesty" when majority scholarship dismisses this epistle as very late and a forgery.

I’ve already explained that we can get to this eventually if you'd like, so chill.

I’m waiting. What's the delay, given that external evidence is relevant to the discussion?

I’ll ask for the THIRD time. Was the author of John lying when he claimed to be a witness at 1:14?

Probably! Not maliciously but to serve a purpose. Just as the author of 2 Peter lied about being Peter the apostle - presumably to gain authority as Jesus’ right-hand man, when encouraging the faithful to hold true to their faith despite the delay of the parousia.

Also, I’ll ask this question AGAIN. On the other hand similar style between two texts would be a cogent argument for both texts having been composed by the same author, agreed?

Possibly but not necessarily! E.g. The style of John’s gospel and that of the Johannine epistles is not dissimilar, but majority scholarship does not think they are by the same author. As with the Petrine epistles similar writing styles are just one factor – although in the case of 1 & 2 Peter the styles are so utterly dissimilar that it is a major one.

[Juice]

Early on I pointed out...

My apologies if I didn’t notice this next part if you had in fact pointed it out earlier (which I don't believe you did). But in my defense, frankly, I find your posts a little hard to follow with all the italics, bolding, “quote mining,” and (references in parenthesis).

The word "logos" can refer to the inner thought (a divine reason) which is expressed outwardly in words or other communication. In the beginning God had this inner thought. His singular purpose was centered in Christ. When Christ was born, this "word" was turned into flesh and blood. Jesus was "the word made flesh" (John 1:14). The thought, the purpose, the reason that was in God’s mind in the beginning, (the "logos") was expressed outwardly in the person of Jesus Christ.

My bolds added. If I understand you here we are in agreement for the purposes of my argument. Which is that the author of John claims to be a witness to Jesus at John 1:14.

[Juice]

You smell wrongly. My point was that it is easy to dismiss an argument when taking sound-bites out of context. And you are still doing it. SeanD is very strong on this point and I agree with him. It’s a dishonest tactic.

No it isn’t and I haven’t taken anything out of context. Your so called “arguments” contain premises and I’m attacking each premise as you should do with mine. If even a single premise of an argument is false the argument is not sound – it’s basic logic. But I do note your continued efforts to turn a minor issue, revolving around my debating style, into a subtle ad hominem on my personal character.

Yes, well it would be difficult to argue given that it’s unambiguously stated in the NT.

So if something is unambiguously stated in the NT then we have no real basis to argue against it, huh? Okay...

John is an Aramaic speaking, illiterate fisherman from the backwater of Galilee and is thus not likely to be the author of the book that bears his name.

Let’s apply your above standard here to see how fairly you apply it. Where does it unambiguously say in the NT John was “illiterate”?

Yes I did thanks. It would be difficult to envisage John being included in the top 500.

Can you envisage a literate Greek speaking Jew?

Well it would hardly be a Jew writing a book about Jesus the god, would it?

Unless of course Jesus had done/said some things that convinced the author that he was God incarnate.

More to the point, you seem to be trying to conflate John the apostle as the author of the gospel that bears his name which is highly improbable, with an anonymous literate Greek Christian.

Would you like a match for that Strawman?

The latter is most likely the composer of John’s gospel. We don’t know who that could be but his sources would be the oral tradition which had evolved to the point where Jesus was considered eternally divine, i.e. a later tradition.

Still Begging the Question I see. Again you are assuming the contents of John were not based upon the author’s personal experiences.

Hardly “blown out of the water”!

The pampered upper classes, with good nutrition and healthy life-style, no doubt lived to a ripe old age. The likes of a poor fisherman, turned evangelist, such as the apostle John is less likely. But we cannot know either way.

There’s no good reason to think the author of John could not have had a sufficient enough diet to live long enough to compose an account, even at the age of around 100. Especially considering his diet likely included fish. Cardiologist Dr Muredach Reilly says, "The fact when we look at the populations with the high fish intake, we can see that they have longevity even though they have other hardships in their life. We really do believe that a diet that's enriched in omega three fat, through eating fish and a natural intake, can lead to a longer life.”

Like I said. Blown out of the water...

You appear to be ambivalent whether the Gospel was written by John the apostle or someone else.

Not at all. I’ve been quite clear that my argument is the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness. I have made no argument as to who that witness is.

But, that aside you are putting the full weight of your argument of eyewitness reportage on just one passage in John. That is not much to go on, especially when we know that early texts were tampered with to emphasize theological points. “A great deal of early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities……” ‘Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts’. Dr H Gamble, Professor of Religious Studies, Virginia University

That's right, when one doesn’t like a verse or passage because it falsifies one’s argument just try to make it disappear by implying it might have been an interpolation. Please tell me you have something stronger than an insinuation. Some conclusive manuscript evidence that 1:14 was tampered with perhaps?

E.g. The author of 2 Peter, writing in the apostle’s Peter’s name, specifically claimed to be an “eyewitness of his majesty" when majority scholarship dismisses this epistle as very late and a forgery.

All this would prove is that the majority of scholars reject 2 Peter.

I’m waiting. What's the delay, given that external evidence is relevant to the discussion?

Actually, the external evidence is relevant in this case for establishing who the author is and is therefore not relevant to the current point of contention which is whether we have any firsthand accounts for Jesus. Why isn’t this sinking in?

Probably! Not maliciously but to serve a purpose. Just as the author of 2 Peter lied about being Peter the apostle - presumably to gain authority as Jesus’ right-hand man, when encouraging the faithful to hold true to their faith despite the delay of the parousia.

What was the author of John’s purpose for lying then? This better be good considering Jesus’ is recorded by the author of John as associating lying with the devil…

”You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.’ – John 8:44

Possibly but not necessarily! E.g. The style of John’s gospel and that of the Johannine epistles is not dissimilar, but majority scholarship does not think they are by the same author. As with the Petrine epistles similar writing styles are just one factor – although in the case of 1 & 2 Peter the styles are so utterly dissimilar that it is a major one.

You appeal to an argument from dissimilarity in style to excuse same authorship for 1 and 2 Peter as so conclusive it “could not possibly have been composed by the same person.” But then turn around and concede the gospel of John and epistles are “not dissimilar” but excuse same authorship not because they are dissimilar but incorrectly because “majority scholarship does not think they are by the same author.” Your waffling and inconsistent application of criterion is noted.

[Composer]

My bolds added. If I understand you here we are in agreement for the purposes of my argument. Which is that the author of John claims to be a witness to Jesus at John 1:14.

We are agreed then that the person who wrote on John's behalf only (hearsay evidence at best) ' claims ' to have been a witness?

I can ' claim ' I saw Father Xmas coming down the chimney but unless I provide legitimate proof then like your author of John, his claim remains a ' claim ' and legitimately un substantiated at that!

[Doug Shaver]

Clearly, the argument from historical proximity is groundless

Not quite groundless, I would say. Historical proximity can do some historiographical work, but certainly not as much as some apologists try to make it do. Given two sources, it is reasonable to suppose that, all else being equal, the one closer to the event is more reliable. Trouble is, it's never the case that all else is equal.

A far more important question than "How close was the source?" is "Where did this source get his information?" If we cannot establish a reliable connection between the source and what he reports, then we just don't know whether we should just take his word for whatever he says. If he was an eyewitness, then that is a good connection. It's about as historically proximate as you can get. But that doesn't mean anything, if all we have is a document, until we know that an eyewitness wrote that document.

We don't have any eyewitnesses. All we have are documents that, according to sources other than their authors, were written by eyewitnesses. So now we need to ask where those other sources got their information about who wrote those documents. If they don't tell us how they got their information, then we don't know how they got their information and so we don't know that we have any eyewitness testimony.

The value of historical proximity declines very rapidly as we get away from contemporaneous sources. The process is not linear. We cannot assume that a Christian writer living in 200 CE is presumptively 10 times more reliable than a scholar working in 2000 CE. No writer, living at any time in history, can be more reliable than his sources. A writer using sources unknown to us cannot be known by us to be giving us reliable information, and historical proximity cannot change that.

It could be argued that if, for instance, we have a source from 200 CE and another source from 100 CE, then we may reasonably suppose that the earlier was more likely to have access to good sources about things that we going on in the early first century. But it does not follow from that, that he actually did have access. Just because A is more probable than B doesn't mean A is certain. Nor can we justifiably assume that someone having access to a source must have used that source. That is part of what I mean by everything else not being equal. It's good to know that a source has historical proximity, but it's a very long way from being all we need to know.

[Adam]

deleted triplicate by author

[Adam]

Duplicate deleted by author

[Adam]

....A far more important question than "How close was the source?" is "Where did this source get his information?" If we cannot establish a reliable connection between the source and what he reports, then we just don't know whether we should just take his word for whatever he says. If he was an eyewitness, then that is a good connection. It's about as historically proximate as you can get. But that doesn't mean anything, if all we have is a document, until we know that an eyewitness wrote that document.
We don't have any eyewitnesses. All we have are documents that, according to sources other than their authors, were written by eyewitnesses. So now we need to ask where those other sources got their information about who wrote those documents. If they don't tell us how they got their information, then we don't know how they got their information and so we don't know that we have any eyewitness testimony....

All well and good, but we've been through this many times before, Doug, and you've bowed out time-and-again before you had to face what I was saying. Many's the time I've posted the link to my four articles showing the early provenance of the Synoptic gospels, and I've quoted from them many times here in Apologetics 301:
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common
More recently I have taken up the more difficult task of proving how early the Gospel of John is as well. We have reached #208 in my thread here, "Source Strata in the Gospel of John."
Just for you, Doug, let me reiterate that my source-critical guru for my analysis of John is the atheist Howard M. Teeple. So when he extracted two sources underlying that gospel, he was basing it on secular, skeptical grounds. So when it turns out that one of those sources (his "G") lends itself to having arisen from Nicodemus's critical notes from Jesus's preaching, you can't attribute my own Christian belief with having fashioned this source for my apologetic needs. When it turns out that his other major source ("S") is best understood as two merged sources, one being the Signs Source I can trace to Andrew and the other being the Passion Narrative best derived from John Mark's own personal experience as "the disciple known to the high priest", you can't say that I derived those sources. By careful word study Teeple showed what came from the sources and that the insertions by the Editor were not the "source" of the supernatural elements. The miracles were already in the Signs Source. The claims by Jesus to His supernatural status were already in the G source. Only the Resurrection accounts could be easily argued to be from later strata, though not necessarily so. See my own source-derivation in the "Petrine Ur-Marcus" portion found here:
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Resurrection
Even Teeple finds the following Resurrection verses in John 20 to be from some source: 1, 3-5, 8, 11b-14a, 16-17, 19a, 19c, 20b, 22-23, 26-27a, and 30.
And from even John 21: 2-6, 7b, 8b-9, 11-13, and 15b-17.
As for the identity of the Editor Teeple derived, Teeple's own analysis shows him most active in John 13, the key chapter about the Beloved Disciple. By further reasoning I can show he was most likely John the Apostle.

[Tassman]

No it isn’t and I haven’t taken anything out of context. Your so called “arguments” contain premises and I’m attacking each premise as you should do with mine. If even a single premise of an argument is false the argument is not sound – it’s basic logic. But I do note your continued efforts to turn a minor issue, revolving around my debating style, into a subtle ad hominem on my personal character.

It has nothing to do with “basic logic”. To dismantle an argument consisting of multiple points and then attempt dismissing the points one by one is a dishonest approach to debating. This is what you do by commenting on single sound bites, this is what TWeb theist SeanD objects to as invalid debating - I agree with him, and this is what you do throughout the entire discussion.

The “minor issue around your debating style” is not minor in that it is dishonest. If you want to “note” this as an attack on your personal character” then so be it. Are these tricks what it takes to win an argument against a non-theist?

For example in a typical instance, you seem to expect me to respond to just 7 words, namely “Can you envisage a literate Greek speaking Jew” which you have given in response to: “It would be difficult to envisage John being included in the top 500” - which is the wrong sound-bite.
At NO point have you made a positive contribution but limit yourself to snide put-downs.

So if something is unambiguously stated in the NT then we have no real basis to argue against it, huh? Okay...

I didn’t say that. What was unambiguously stated in the NT was that John was a fisherman in the backwater region of Galilee. Nothing more.

Let’s apply your above standard here to see how fairly you apply it. Where does it unambiguously say in the NT John was “illiterate”?

What I took from the John being a fisherman is that it is known only the upper 10% of the population was literate in that era. A fisherman from Galilee would not be classified in the upper 10%. Got it!

Can you envisage a literate Greek speaking Jew?

See above!

But I’ll respond anyway. What I said was that it was difficult to envisage a Greek-speaking Jew writing a book such as John’s gospel about the Christian man/god. It is not the sort of thing Jews did.

Unless of course Jesus had done/said some things that convinced the author that he was God incarnate.

Then he would be a Christian Jew, wouldn’t he? There were plenty of those in the early Church, e.g. The Ebionites, The Jerusalem Church under James, the brother of Jesus, and the Nazoreans.

But none of them believed Jesus was god and most certainly would not be writing a book that posits Jesus as god from eternity as per John, or since his incarnation which is the Matthean/Lucan view. Such a notion can only be late Christology – hence the late dating of John.

Would you like a match for that Strawman?

No straw-man but an attempt to understand your argument, such as it is.

You seem to alternate between John’s gospel being composed either by John himself in old age or by another author, not John. But in either case you are arguing that the author, whichever it was, was an eyewitness based on just one verse in the gospel.

Still Begging the Question I see. Again you are assuming the contents of John were not based upon the author’s personal experiences.

It is YOU begging the question by assuming that John was based on personal experiences and was an eyewitness to them based on just one verse, when we have evidence aplenty of forgery interpolations and simple scribal errors in ALL NT books. It’s a very slight foundation for your argument.

There’s no good reason to think the author of John could not have had a sufficient enough diet to live long enough to compose an account, even at the age of around 100. Especially considering his diet likely included fish. Cardiologist Dr Muredach Reilly says, "The fact when we look at the populations with the high fish intake, we can see that they have longevity even though they have other hardships in their life. We really do believe that a diet that's enriched in omega three fat, through eating fish and a natural intake, can lead to a longer life.”

Like I said. Blown out of the water...

And there is no reason to think he did. All this is based on assumptions about what John ate for dinner2, 000 years ago. We are never told.

Nowhere near being “blown out of the water”!

Not at all. I’ve been quite clear that my argument is the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness. I have made no argument as to who that witness is.

You have not refuted the many arguments for thinking the gospel attributed to John was NOT written by an eyewitness. It is mere wish fulfillment on your part.

That's right, when one doesn’t like a verse or passage because it falsifies one’s argument just try to make it disappear by implying it might have been an interpolation. Please tell me you have something stronger than an insinuation. Some conclusive manuscript evidence that 1:14 was tampered with perhaps?

It is you, not me trying to make a case for eyewitness reportage based on just one verse, not supported anywhere else, with considerable evidence against it and in the face of the known facts that we do not have the original autographs, that we know early texts were tampered with to emphasize theological points and that much early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities. We don’t know this applies to John, necessarily but there is no reason to think John’s gospel was exempt from such corruptions of text.

All this would prove is that the majority of scholars reject 2 Peter.

What this would prove is that the majority of competent, recognized scholars have good reason to regard 2 Peter as a forgery.

Actually, the external evidence is relevant in this case for establishing who the author is and is therefore not relevant to the current point of contention which is whether we have any firsthand accounts for Jesus. Why isn’t this sinking in?

What isn’t sinking in is the issue of authorship, i.e. Johannine or otherwise is relevant to whether it is an eyewitness account.

What was the author of John’s purpose for lying then? This better be good considering Jesus’ is recorded by the author of John as associating lying with the devil…

”You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.’ – John 8:44

The obvious purpose for a Christian apologist such as the author of John was to lend extra authority to the Jesus story by claiming eyewitness reportage. Just as the author of 2 Peter claimed the authority of Peter himself, i.e. Jesus’ right-hand man, in appealing to the faithful to hold true to the faith even though Peter himself was most certainly not the author.

You appeal to an argument from dissimilarity in style to excuse same authorship for 1 and 2 Peter as so conclusive it “could not possibly have been composed by the same person.” But then turn around and concede the gospel of John and epistles are “not dissimilar” but excuse same authorship not because they are dissimilar but incorrectly because “majority scholarship does not think they are by the same author.” Your waffling and inconsistent application of criterion is noted.

What should be noted is your own misunderstandings.

You have again missed my stated point that similar/dissimilar writing styles are just one factor in assessing authorship – although, as I said but you ignored, in the case of 1 & 2 Peter the styles are so utterly dissimilar that it is a major factor whereas in the Johannine epistles it is not.

[Doug Shaver]

All well and good, but we've been through this many times before, Doug, and you've bowed out time-and-again before you had to face what I was saying.

What you were saying boils down to: Here are some experts who agree with me. I can face that all day long.

Many's the time I've posted the link to my four articles showing the early provenance of the Synoptic gospels

Repetition won't turn an invalid argument into a valid argument.

Just for you, Doug, let me reiterate that my source-critical guru for my analysis of John is the atheist Howard M. Teeple.

Whether Teeple believes in God is totally irrelevant to any argument he makes about when the gospels were written.

So when it turns out that one of those sources (his "G") lends itself to having arisen from Nicodemus's critical notes from Jesus's preaching, you can't attribute my own Christian belief with having fashioned this source for my apologetic needs. When it turns out that his other major source ("S") is best understood as two merged sources, one being the Signs Source I can trace to Andrew and the other being the Passion Narrative best derived from John Mark's own personal experience as "the disciple known to the high priest", you can't say that I derived those sources. By careful word study Teeple showed what came from the sources and that the insertions by the Editor were not the "source" of the supernatural elements. The miracles were already in the Signs Source. The claims by Jesus to His supernatural status were already in the G source.

That whole argument clearly depends on a pack of assumptions that I don't make. Assumptions are not evidence for anything.

[Adam]

What you were saying boils down to: Here are some experts who agree with me. I can face that all day long.

No, Howard Teeple is an Atheist and he believes that the gospels were written later than the general consensus. If you would look at my links and my thread "Source Strata in the Gospel of John" you would see that I have carefully thought all this out for myself. Therefore none of your usual dismissal of other Christians applies to my arguments.

Repetition won't turn an invalid argument into a valid argument.

But you have never responded to my arguments, you just cut and run. Reply to one of my articles then, that might show that my other three articles are similarly disproven.

Whether Teeple believes in God is totally irrelevant to any argument he makes about when the gospels were written.

Quite the contrary. Because he turned against his pastoral career meant that he had to date the gospels late enough to remove any truth value from them. Considering the four gospels in the light of Acts and when Acts was written shows that the gospels are most likely earlier than 63 A. D.

That whole argument clearly depends on a pack of assumptions that I don't make. Assumptions are not evidence for anything.

No assumptions. Teeple wrote The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John (1974) specifically based on critical scholarly investigation of word and grammatical use in John.
He did assume that Jesus was not divine and that therefore the gospels and their sources had to have been written late. I remove that assumption. Then the sources he objectively detailed turn out to point to the most likely authors being eye-witnesses.
You and Tassman make the assumptions. What is the evidence that the writers of the source strata in the gospels were not eye-witnesses? There is lots of evidence of eyewitness testimony.

[Adam]

You seem to alternate between John’s gospel being composed either by John himself in old age or by another author, not John. But in either case you are arguing that the author, whichever it was, was an eyewitness based on just one verse in the gospel.
It is YOU begging the question by assuming that John was based on personal experiences and was an eyewitness to them based on just one verse, when we have evidence aplenty of forgery interpolations and simple scribal errors in ALL NT books. It’s a very slight foundation for your argument.
You have not refuted the many arguments for thinking the gospel attributed to John was NOT written by an eyewitness. It is mere wish fulfillment on your part.
It is you, not me trying to make a case for eyewitness reportage based on just one verse, not supported anywhere else, with considerable evidence against it and in the face of the known facts that we do not have the original autographs, that we know early texts were tampered with to emphasize theological points and that much early Christian literature was composed for the purpose of advancing a particular viewpoint amid the conflicts of ideas and practices that repeatedly arose within and between Christian communities. We don’t know this applies to John, necessarily but there is no reason to think John’s gospel was exempt from such corruptions of text.
What isn’t sinking in is the issue of authorship, i.e. Johannine or otherwise is relevant to whether it is an eyewitness account.
The obvious purpose for a Christian apologist such as the author of John was to lend extra authority to the Jesus story by claiming eyewitness reportage. Just as the author of 2 Peter claimed the authority of Peter himself, i.e. Jesus’ right-hand man, in appealing to the faithful to hold true to the faith even though Peter himself was most certainly not the author.

I have compressed here your repeated assertions that John was not written by an eye-witness, ironically expressed mostly in your opponent's supposed reliance only upon John 1:14 as his basis. (True, elsewhere you do claim that the high Christology in John has to be late because lots of scholars say so. What about the other large school of scholars who such high views existed in Gnostic, Essene, or other schools of thought of the time? Bultman, Teeple, and other source-critics say that the high Christology comes from a source.)
As for the events in John, both the Signs Source and the Passion Narrative look like first-hand testimony. Put that aside for the moment, what is in what Teeple claims comes from a later Editor? Consider the eye-witness touches in John 13 such as the foot-washing, in which at least eight specific details are listed in just John 13:4-6, and four more in verses 9-10. Detailed touches are seen throughout the seventeen other verses in that chapter that Teeple attributes to the Editor. If even the Editor seems to be an eye-witness, how much more so the three sources he used?.
I acknowledge that there are some stray verses in John that seem like the comments of someone not directly involved. That's taken care of by Teeple's sorting out of about a chapter's worth of verses from a Redactor. If even Teeple wouldn't claim that seemingly peripheral comments or preaching was not originally in texts he believed not to be from eye-witnesses, isn't that evidence that 95% of John was from eyewitnesses?
Not essential to my argument above, but I do acknowledge the Editor to be John the Apostle.

[Doug Shaver]

What is the evidence that the writers of the source strata in the gospels were not eye-witnesses?

None is needed. It's the claim that they were eyewitnesses that needs evidence.

There is lots of evidence of eyewitness testimony.

You say so.